San Francisco set to pass cell phone radiation law

[Gavin Scott]

San Francisco is set to be the first city in the US to require mobile phone retailers to post radiation levels next to handsets they sell.

The board of supervisors, or council, voted 10-1 to approve the measure, with final approval expected next week.

"This is about helping people make informed choices," said the law's chief sponsor, Supervisor Sophie Maxwell.

The mobile phone industry said studies showed cell phone radiation was not harmful to people.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8744715.stm

So what do we think to this, people?

If repeated studies show that cell phones don't have a deleterious effect on people - why make it mandatory to publish this information next to devices on sale? It just doesn't make a lot of sense, and its likely to cause, at best, more confusion - and at worst it may cause people to dismiss worthy scientific studies; rather like those who choose to believe that global warming is nothing but a conspiracy, despite years of studies and evidence.

I see that, in common with every other western country, they're not so interested in having shelf-edge information about the dangers of saturated fat or alcohol; which are infinitely more harmful to large numbers of society.

So what's the motivation here?

Do you think there may be a link to tumours/cancer etc. from mobiles?

Discuss.

[Dr Lobster*]

i really don't know.

i don't use my phone to make a huge number of phone calls, maybe a 10-20 minutes a week but it is always retrieving emails and facebook messages and for this reason it try not to have it in my pocket all day, preferring to leave it on my desk.

because mobile always-on internet and data connections are a relatively new thing i guess it's going to take some time before we know for sure if we are all carrying around a time bomb in our pockets.

[Chie]

Who knew that smoking could cause cancer, alcohol can cause liver disease or that asbestos leads to scarring of the lungs? These are all diseases that take decades to develop. Mobiles have been in common use for only 10 years.

The radiation output of mobile phones will no doubt increase as the technology becomes more advanced, and consumers are using phones more than ever for all sorts of things. So it's not a done deal and I think we should remain open-minded, continue to monitor the rate of brain tumors and birth defects, and carry out more research.

[Jovis]

Though did they do similar tests ten years into using, say, asbestos?

[Gavin Scott]

Though did they do similar tests ten years into using, say, asbestos?

No, and that's a very good point. They retrospectively discovered that asbestos caused harm because of a series of illnesses.

In the case of mobiles, there's been a kind of specious logic from day one suggesting that, "anything that spits out radiation must be harmful"; and so tests have been happening for almost as long as they've been in popular use.

I'm open minded; but at the same time I do think that this whole culture of disregarding science isn't particularly helping to advance the human race.

But then they teach the creation theory in lots of States, don't they?

[madmusician]

On one hand I feel that giving information to the consumer is a good thing: they can make an informed choice based on how strongly they feel radiation levels can damage their bodies.

However, it can also be dangerous. As you said, Gav, people can ignore science and just take to scaremongering, and giving information of levels that people don't really understand ("OMG, that's a massive number, we're all going to die!!") won't help the situation either.

Take the example of a smoke detector. If it became more common knowledge that it emitted alpha particles in order to detect smoke, the Daily Mail would have a field day, and many people would refuse to use them because they fear getting cancer (even though this risk is negligable and far less than burning to death in the result of a fire). That is one good reason for not giving consumers information that they do not understand. Of course, it's fairly common knowledge that mobile phones emit radiation already, so the analogy isn't quite perfect.

(Guess who's doing their A level Physics tomorrow... )

[Chie]

Though did they do similar tests ten years into using, say, asbestos?

One of the diseases caused by asbestos inhalation takes 20 to 50 years to develop.

The adverse effects of mobile phone usage, if there are any, could take just as long to materialise.

How can you test whether something will cause an as yet unknown condition (it might cause something other than cancer) in the human body in 50 years time? You can't. You just have to wait 50 years and see what happens.

I'm open minded; but at the same time I do think that this whole culture of disregarding science isn't particularly helping to advance the human race.

Well, when people discovered asbestos I'm sure they went, "Yay! heat-resistant material at last - we've progressed!" Then look what happened. Same with smoking, alcohol, nuclear radiation, some fertilisers, Thalidomide... oh, and fossil fuels. I'm sure if you thought about it for long enough, you could think of hundreds of things that have been found to be harmful to the planet or the human body many years after initially being celebrated for their potential to help advance society.

[Inspector Sands]

In the case of mobiles, there's been a kind of specious logic from day one suggesting that, "anything that spits out radiation must be harmful"; and so tests have been happening for almost as long as they've been in popular use.

The use of the word 'radiation' really annoys me. 'Radiation' covers many different things: nuclear isotopes radiate as do radio transmitters... but it's not the same thing.

[Gavin Scott]

Though did they do similar tests ten years into using, say, asbestos?

One of the diseases caused by asbestos inhalation takes 20 to 50 years to develop.

The adverse effects of mobile phone usage, if there are any, could take just as long to materialise.

How can you test whether something will cause an as yet unknown condition (it might cause something other than cancer) in the human body in 50 years time? You can't. You just have to wait 50 years and see what happens.

Not necessarily.

Its possible to replicate a speeded-up passage of time for the purposes of testing - which has been common for paints, coatings, rust proofings etc for decades.

Its not beyond a stretch of imagination that in 2010 they can do the same for biological cause/effect tests. Or a close approximation at least.

Certainly its sensible to do as the Doctor does, and leave your smart phone on a desk - just to be sure.

But that's not the same thing as overtly suggesting an "inherent danger" by way of State legislation.

[Chie]

If it became more common knowledge that it emitted alpha particles in order to detect smoke, the Daily Mail would have a field day

I was under the impression that smoke detectors fire a small laser at an internal mirror, which is then reflected back into the sensor - and if that beam is broken by smoke, the alarm sounds.

I was under the impression that smoke detectors emit Polonium-210, but they don't, it's Americium-241. Apparently there are two main methods of smoke detection: ionization (that's the one with radioactive particles) and optical beam, but some units employ both methods for extra reliability.

[Sput]

I was under the impression that smoke detectors emit Polonium-210, but they don't, it's Americium-241. Apparently there are two main methods of smoke detection: ionization (that's the one with radioactive particles) and optical beam, but some units employ both methods for extra reliability.

After reading these words, I'm reminded of this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwGOlERY ... re=related